Akash Pathak Gets Chance to Keep PMLA-Seized Harrier and BMW by Furnishing FDR Matching Fresh Valuation: Orissa HC

The Enforcement Directorate seized and attached two vehicles registered in the petitioner’s name—a Tata Harrier and a BMW—as alleged proceeds of crime.

The attachments were confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and were not challenged by the petitioner.

The Special Judge permitted the ED to sell the vehicles but allowed the petitioner to retain them by furnishing an FDR of ₹55,50,000, based on a valuation report dated 17 March 2025. In revision, the petitioner sought interim custody on property surety instead of an FDR, contending that the vehicles’ value was diminishing while they remained exposed to the elements.

Section 5 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) empowers provisional attachment of property considered to be proceeds of crime, subject to the statutory requirements.

Section 8(3) provides for confirmation of attachment or retention by the Adjudicating Authority, while Section 8(7) empowers the Special Court, in the circumstances specified there, to make appropriate orders regarding confiscation or release of property.

The second proviso to Rule 4(2) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties Confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2013 provides that, for a movable property that is a conveyance, the authorized officer may accept and retain an FDR of a nationalized bank equivalent to the property’s value as security in the name of the Director of Enforcement.

The Court read these provisions together as permitting release or retention of the vehicle against security equivalent to its value; the applicable proviso specifies an FDR for a conveyance.

The Court declined to direct release against property surety, relying on Rule 4(2)’s specific provision for an FDR equivalent to the value of a conveyance.

It nevertheless found that the Special Judge had relied on a valuation report more than one and a half years old, although the vehicles’ condition and value could deteriorate while they remained in custody.

The appropriate course was therefore to obtain a fresh valuation and give the petitioner an opportunity to furnish an FDR for the updated value before the vehicles were dealt with by sale.

The petitioner may retain the vehicles by furnishing an FDR from a nationalized bank, in the name of the Director of Enforcement, equivalent to their freshly determined value; otherwise, the vehicles are to be dealt with in accordance with law and the applicable Rules.